Thread: Tax Discrimination Part II

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

While the tax rate is identical on the surface because of the prebates it's effect on gross expendatures varies greatly based upon consumption of new goods and services.

Just as any tax but a poll tax will vary greatly based on the individual's choices relative to the tax base. To claim that only a consumption tax is based on the same criteria for all is absurd.

Of note it also taxes the wealthy that may today, by choice, have zero income because they no longer require income to live on.

The wealthy don't care, as they get enormous income given to them as a welfare subsidy giveaway.

A person with $100 million in the bank really doesn't require any income at all as they could live like a virtual king for the rest of their life without income.

"Turning $100 into $200 is work. Turning $100 million into $200 milion is inevitable." -- Canadian billionaire Samuel Bronfman

They'll still spend money but have no need to earn it.

But they can spend it in other countries, untaxed, and get it through ownership of assets in the USA, untaxed. Thus paying no tax at all, anywhere, ever. Which is the actual intended result of the despicable "Fair"Tax nonsense.

Originally Posted by Reiver

No, it was ignorant.

No, it was very astute, penetrating and informed, which is why you have to evade it, and contrive some way of lying about the facts in order to rationalize your preference for the unjust and destructive income tax over the just and beneficial system of recovering publicly created value for public purposes and benefit.

We're referring to taking money away. That is a flow.

No, it is not. You are just lying again, as usual. A flow is a transfer of a given amount of purchasing power (usually money) per unit of time, such as income per year. A tax payment, by contrast, is a one-time transfer OF a stock, FROM a stock, TO a stock. Consider a sales tax payment, for example: the sales tax simply takes an amount from the consumer's stock, once, and transfers it to the government's stock, once. The fact that income tax withholding payments are made at regular intervals and usually for similar amounts is irrelevant, as the method of payment begs the question. It could just as easily be (and often is) paid in a lump sum at the end of the year. An estate tax payment is made once only, and so is indisputably not a flow but a transfer of a stock. You are just objectively and indisputably wrong.

We therefore have to refer to diminishing marginal utility of income to refer to non-discriminatory practice.

Nope. That's just another bald falsehood from you. The diminishing marginal utility of income is itself wholly dependent on diminishing marginal utility of wealth: a billionaire's utility will remain effectively unchanged whether his income is $10, $10K, or $10M; but someone who owns no wealth will continue to have high marginal utility of income well above the mean income, until their wealth reaches a level more typical for people with similar incomes. You are again proved objectively wrong.

All a little obvious (except perhaps a Georgist)!

Oh, your claims are obvious, all right: obviously wrong.

Originally Posted by Roy L

No, it was very astute, penetrating and informed, which is why you have to evade it, and contrive some way of lying about the facts in order to rationalize your preference for the unjust and destructive income tax over the just and beneficial system of recovering publicly created value for public purposes and benefit.

You can add as much emotional clap-trap as you want. A tax takes away money from an individual and therefore, quite obviously, it is rational to refer to diminishing marginal utility of income (and nonsensical to refer instead, for example, to diminishing marginal utility of wealth)

A tax payment, by contrast, is a one-time transfer OF a stock, FROM a stock, TO a stock.

Nonsense. Taxes are a flow from worker/employer/consumer to government. Bleedin obvious really

The diminishing marginal utility of income is itself wholly dependent on diminishing marginal utility of wealth

Nonsense. You do get yourself in an awful pickle. Diminishing marginal utility of income is merely dependent on the nature of the utility function. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth is typically much more mundane, such as the desperately exciting debate over risk aversion

Originally Posted by Reiver

You can add as much emotional clap-trap as you want.

You can tell stupid lies all you want.

A tax takes away money from an individual and therefore, quite obviously, it is rational to refer to diminishing marginal utility of income (and nonsensical to refer instead, for example, to diminishing marginal utility of wealth)

No, it is self-evidently and indisputably the other way around, as I already proved to you: a billionaire's marginal utility of income is the same whether that income is $10, $10K, or $10M. This indisputable fact just flat-out refutes all the stupid lies you have told, and all the stupid lies you will ever tell.

Nonsense.

Indisputable fact.

Taxes are a flow from worker/employer/consumer to government. Bleedin obvious really

It is obvious that is a flat-out lie from you. Taxes are NOT a flow. A tax payment is an amount of money -- a stock -- transferred FROM a stock and TO a stock, not an amount of money per unit of time (a flow). I already proved that to you by the examples of sales tax and estate tax.

Nonsense. You do get yourself in an awful pickle.

It is indisputable fact. You do get into a pickle when you have to concoct ever-more-absurd lies to rescue the already-proved-absurd lies you have previously told.

Diminishing marginal utility of income is merely dependent on the nature of the utility function.

Flat-out lie, as already proved, which is why big lump-sum lottery winners almost always stop working even if they have no income in subsequent years. You just have to tell absurd lies in a foredoomed attempt to rescue your previously told absurd lies.

Diminishing marginal utility of wealth is typically much more mundane, such as the desperately exciting debate over risk aversion

Ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Originally Posted by Roy L

You can tell stupid lies all you want.

No thanks, I'll just stick to stating the obvious: you use emotionalism, together with your childish 'you lie' rant, to hide from your inability to contruct comment that has any economic merit.

No, it is self-evidently and indisputably the other way around, as I already proved to you: a billionaire's marginal utility of income is the same whether that income is $10, $10K, or $10M. This indisputable fact just flat-out refutes all the stupid lies you have told, and all the stupid lies you will ever tell.

This is just an ignorant reply. You can refer to how wealthy individuals may have zero official income. You cannot, however, use that to suggest that the marginal utility of income is constant. The best you have is the use of permanent income and how current income may confuse, for example, the impact on income smoothing. That measure will continue, however, to illustrate the integrity of the diminishing marginal utility of income conclusion.

It is obvious that is a flat-out lie from you. Taxes are NOT a flow.

Its a flow, without question. It flows from payer to government. Your ranting has simply forced you to make ridiculous statement.

Flat-out lie, as already proved, which is why big lump-sum lottery winners almost always stop working even if they have no income in subsequent years. You just have to tell absurd lies in a foredoomed attempt to rescue your previously told absurd lies.

Lottery wins would only be useful in terms of reference to further characteristics of the utility function: i.e. Once we consider payoffs and probabilities we can refer to how risk loving and risk aversion can both occur (with the difference dependent on the probability of the event and the magnitude of the event). Useflu stuff, but still incapable of allowing you to make a pertinent point: a dollar taken from someone poorer is worth more to her because of diminishing marginal utility of income.

Ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

It was a means to show you where diminishing margunal utility of wealth can be applied. I appreciate, as you're not interested in validity, it won't interest you

Originally Posted by Reiver

No thanks, I'll just stick to stating the obvious: you use emotionalism, together with your childish 'you lie' rant, to hide from your inability to contruct comment that has any economic merit.

No, I've refuted and humiliated you for your elementary blunder; and sorry, but it's a bit obvious why you have to cry and stamp your tiny foot whenever I identify your lies: you want to be able to lie and not have your lies identified.

This is just an ignorant reply.

No, it proves you are a textbook example of Kalecki's famous quote, "economics is the science of confusing stocks with flows."

You can refer to how wealthy individuals may have zero official income. You cannot, however, use that to suggest that the marginal utility of income is constant.

Yes I can, and I have. The billionaire experiences no increase in utility with rising income, because it makes no difference to his lifestyle: he is already spending all he wants to spend. You are just objectively wrong.

The best you have is the use of permanent income and how current income may confuse, for example, the impact on income smoothing.

"Permanent income" is nothing but an anti-concept designed to prevent fools from using the valid concept of wealth.

That measure will continue, however, to illustrate the integrity of the diminishing marginal utility of income conclusion.

No, all it can do is help liars distract the attention of fools from wealth.

Its a flow, without question.

It is indisputably not a flow, as already proved. It is indisputably a transfer OF a stock FROM a stock TO a stock. Whether that transfer is effected on one occasion, as with a sales tax or estate tax, or regularly on many occasions, such as income withholding tax, cannot alter the fact that it is an AMOUNT of wealth, not an amount per unit of time.

It flows from payer to government.

Blatant equivocation fallacy. It is TRANSFERRED from payer to government at a given time. I have already proved to you that the entire effect of a tax is to reduce the taxpayer's stock and increase the government's. Flows have nothing to do with it.

Your ranting has simply forced you to make ridiculous statement.

I have demolished and humiliated you, so you have to make such absurd claims in order to save face.

Lottery wins would only be useful in terms of reference to further characteristics of the utility function: i.e. Once we consider payoffs and probabilities we can refer to how risk loving and risk aversion can both occur (with the difference dependent on the probability of the event and the magnitude of the event). Useflu stuff, but still incapable of allowing you to make a pertinent point: a dollar taken from someone poorer is worth more to her because of diminishing marginal utility of income.

Nope. That's a blatant falsehood. Consider two people with NO income: a poor widow and a billionaire who only owns assets that generate no income (his mansion and grounds, his paintings, his cars, etc.). They both pay sales tax, but by definition, their marginal utility of income is undefined and therefore irrelevant. The dollar the poor widow pays in sales tax is BY DEFINITION NOT worth more to her because of diminishing utility of income, but diminishing utility of wealth.

You are conclusively destroyed.

It was a means to show you where diminishing margunal utility of wealth can be applied. I appreciate, as you're not interested in validity, it won't interest you

<yawn> Demolished above.

Originally Posted by Roy L

No, I've refuted and humiliated you for your elementary blunder

No, you've simply followed your script (essentially based on making silly claims and then repeatedly stamping your foot). Everything I've said has been quite correct. The tax is a flow; diminishing marginal utility of wealth is typically used within analysis of risk aversion; you've confused income and wealth because of the cultist attitude adopted where sound economic comment is swamped by childish namecalling.

Your one liner routine though shows you're running out of puff

Originally Posted by Reiver

No, you've simply followed your script (essentially based on making silly claims and then repeatedly stamping your foot)

No, I have conclusively refuted, demolished and humiliated you for your false, absurd and dishonest claims; you know it; and you have no answers, so you have to sneer, evade, dismiss, change the subject, blah, blah, blah, as usual.

Everything I've said has been quite correct.

Already conclusively proved false.

The tax is a flow;

It is indisputably not a flow. The only taxes that are even levied on the basis of time are property taxes and income taxes, but in both cases the liability is not a flow.

diminishing marginal utility of wealth is typically used within analysis of risk aversion;

I'm not interested in the typical ways you are in error.

you've confused income and wealth because of the cultist attitude adopted where sound economic comment is swamped by childish namecalling.

No, I've simply proved that you are erroneously focusing on the irrelevant one of the two in order to divert attention from the crucial one. That works with people who don't know how to think, but it won't work with me.

Originally Posted by Roy L

No, I have conclusively refuted, demolished and humiliated you for your false, absurd and dishonest claims; you know it; and you have no answers, so you have to sneer, evade, dismiss, change the subject, blah, blah, blah, as usual.

The only thing you've managed to do is entertain me. Your stance is vacuous (and of course predictable, given it is necessarily crippled by the cultism adopted). That you can't see a tax as a flow (given it is obviously a flow from the tax payer to the government) demonstrates just how far you'll go in the nonsense stakes. Good ole Friedman was of course able to embed tax and benefit flows within his negative income tax stuff. Of course we don't have to be income specific (although it does help us integrete analysis into comment into poverty and, more generally, how labour supply issues can engineer poverty and unemployment traps). In contrast, you've got your knickers in a twist over other characteristics of the utility function. That diminishing marginal utility of wealth, for example, is focused on the likes of risk aversion is a matter of fact. You'd ofcourse know that if you were familiar with the relevant literature.

It is indisputably not a flow.

A flow without question. Look at how government budget accounts operate; advertises the bleedin obvious.

The only taxes that are even levied on the basis of time are property taxes and income taxes, but in both cases the liability is not a flow

They're all flows. The only issue is the subsequent effect on stocks. Going back to Friedman, for exanple, we'd have to consider how the tax and benefit regime impact on the likes of human capital investment (and, at the extreme, how wealth effects are related to inequalities of opportunity).

No, I've simply proved that you are erroneously focusing on the irrelevant one of the two in order to divert attention from the crucial one. That works with people who don't know how to think, but it won't work with me.

There's no thought in your approach. Its based on stubbornly ignoring economic validity, using that routine of yours to unleash the same ole guff. You made a big error by confusing yourself with diminshing marginal utility of wealth, only really advertising that you're not aware of the nature of the utility function.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Your stance is vacuous (and of course predictable, given it is necessarily crippled by the cultism adopted).

<yawn> Why does income have any utility at all?

The only possible answer refutes you conclusively.

That you can't see a tax as a flow (given it is obviously a flow from the tax payer to the government) demonstrates just how far you'll go in the nonsense stakes.

A tax can only be a flow when it is administered so as to obtain an amount of revenue per unit of time, such as an annual property tax (oopsy for you on that one!) or income tax that is levied based on income per year. Most taxes do not fall into that category, such as excise taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes, etc.

In contrast, you've got your knickers in a twist over other characteristics of the utility function.

No, I'm simply willing to know the fact that income only has utility at all to the extent that it increases wealth.

That diminishing marginal utility of wealth, for example, is focused on the likes of risk aversion is a matter of fact.

It "is focused on the likes of risk aversion" by those who don't want it focused on more pertinent issues, like taxation.

A flow without question. Look at how government budget accounts operate; advertises the bleedin obvious.

Garbage. Government accounts have to be divided into years as a matter of convenience, but that doesn't mean government's spending to buy, say, a new ship for the navy is a flow. It is a one-time transfer of a stock.

They're all flows.

Already refuted.

The only issue is the subsequent effect on stocks.

LOL! And the resulting effect on utility. Thanks for agreeing that you are competely wrong.

There's no thought in your approach. Its based on stubbornly ignoring economic validity, using that routine of yours to unleash the same ole guff. You made a big error by confusing yourself with diminshing marginal utility of wealth, only really advertising that you're not aware of the nature of the utility function.

Dishonest blather beneath comment.